The Glade 4.0

No, I'm 36. And yes, I've had weapons pulled on me. No, I have not been shot or stabbed.



See, more nonsense. Who was threatening them? I'm not sure I've threatened anyone in my life. I see very little point in that.

George Zimmerman's defense is that he was placed in a position where he could no longer disengage from the confrontation and had no choice but to use deadly force. The fact that you think people are "always" in a position to avoid confrontation indicates total ignorance of the reality of what fights are actually like.



You're whining. You keep going on about "why should fighting be illegal?" Irrelevant. The fact is that they are, and the possible consequences for you or everyone else are based on how things are, not how you think they should be. Like I said, if you don't like that, work to get the law changed.



How things should be handled is utterly irrelevant to the possible outcome in view of how things actually ARE handled.



The view of society in general is that the police should care, so obviously its unsurprising I feel that way. Duh. You note the lack of any major movement to repeal statutes that prohibit assault, battery, or fighting outside of sanctioned sporting venues? Yeah, the average person is not anxious to give anyone else a license to commit assault.



Yes you are. You are saying it "should" be a certain way, without a shred of reasoning beyond "people should solve their own problems". Never mind that this would obviously mean that problems were solved in favor of the strong, physically fit, young adults, and more often than not, males and those with martial arts training. Society feels differently. Why should things be the way you want, and not the way society wants?



I'm doing no such thing. I didn't say you held your views because I was a cop; obviously you held them before that or we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're arguing back with me, while failing to respond to Rafael because you "love getting life advice from a cop". He asked you a specific question about road rage that you have failed to respond to despite having adequate time to respond to me. Here's why: You want this to be about "the cop" and the infatuation with authority you imagine me to have, rather than your own asinine behavior and the fact that 5 or 6 people now have called it into question.



No one said any such thing. Reading comprehension; try it out.



The reason the police have that view is that they are required to enforce the law, and the law does not permit the public to "resolve their own issues" in such a way, because the legislature does not allow the physically powerful to go around enforcing their ideas of street etiquette on everyone else. The fact that you think this has anything to do with cops is a result of your own insecurity regarding cops; the police don't make the laws. Its now evident why you get into confrontations with cops; you go around getting into confrontations with everyone else, too.

What do you think the cops should so if they come upon a street fight? Just watch while one guy gets his *** kicked by the other one, then take the winner's word as to what happened? Presumably you don't think the winner should be allowed to keep kicking the guy when he's down or slamming his head into the concrete. At what point SHOULD the police intervene, why, and how is that workable for society? Should women be entitled to police protection that men are not? What about people with extensive martial arts training? Great physical stamina? Why should they have an advantage in disputes over proper behavior?

Your view is in line with that of the arrogant frat boy, and the schoolyard bully. Since you have trouble understanding such things, however, I'll help you - I didn't say you were either of those things; I said your views are similar to theirs.



Obviously, that question was not rhetorical or anything. You haven't been shot or stabbed yet. You claim not to threaten anyone.. but they pull weapons on you. Obviously more than once from your own use of the plural. Gee, who is the common element in all of these situations? Your reasoning is that of the adolescent "It's unlikely, and it hasn't happened to me yet, therefore I don't need to worry about it."



Apparently you did, since by your own words more than one person has pulled a weapon on you. Oh, of course, it wasn't your fault; inconceivable! It must be because they're "pussies" who are afraid of a "good honest tussle".

Whether you threatened anyone is not a matter of whether you said anything overtly threatening; its a matter of whether they believed themselves to be in danger as a result of your actions, not merely your words. What matters is their perception of the situation and whether it's reasonable or not. (Hint - you don't decide that. This is why it's dishonest to cite personal anecdotes and then hide behind the fact that no one else was there. We don't have access to their version of events). Self-defense is not decided based on your intent; its based on your actions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't understand this at all. Arathain, are you unwilling to admit that while most reasonable people, including the ones engaged in discussing this thread, agree that a fair fight should remain a fair fight, that there is no particular reason why actual encounters of road rage would adhere to that principle and that reality clearly supports this?

You can keep gambling and that's fine and well with me. But I don't play with my guns for the simple reason that while I, and probably everyone I know personally and informally, agree I don't "deserve" to die from an negligent discharge, it might very well happen if I choose to play with them and no overwhelming sense of collective fairness is going to change that reality.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Yes, DE, I've never been in a fight.



I'm not going on about anything. I voiced my opinion, and you're crying because you don't like it. I don't need the law changed, because, honestly, I don't care about it.



No ****. When have I ever said differently?



You clearly don't understand what an opinion means. Once again, at no time have I suggested forcing anyone to do anything.



No, actually, I just scrolled up and saw his post now. Your personal narcissism aside, I simply did not see his statement.



DE - why do you think I care about any of this? Cops will do what cops will do. Why should I give a ****?



No - there's a huge difference. A schoolyard bully (not sure what a frat boy has to do with anything) will exert force over weaker individuals to achieve some goal. Every single confrontation I have ever been in, with the exception of one, has involved me responding to such force over weaker individuals or myself, and/or encouraging/allowing such individuals to try doing so with me. The difference is motivation, the difference is in the aggressor. I may be an aggressor, but at no time have I been the only aggressor. With one exception. (Exception: gentleman said something highly inappropriate to a woman I was with and got knocked on his *** - he apologized and that was the end of it.)



Again, wrong. I never once said I am not aware of this possibility, never once did I say I was unconcerned. Simply being aware of a threat does not mean it must be avoided at all costs.



In none of those situations were they acting in self defense. That said, I refer you to my previous statement:

Of course I agree with this - any I apologize for missing your previous question - this is fairly obvious. Don't pay attention to DE - he seems to be running amok with simple ideas.

So yes - it's quite possible that jackass_01, when confronted would A) not be willing to simply be told off and instead be willing to escalate, and B) skip right over "escalate" to weapons. Or, which is frankly more likely IMO, escalate until he realizes he's made a mistake and then go for weapons.

While this is dishonorable in my view, this is certainly realistic, and has occurred in my experience. There are answers for this as well.



A perfectly reasonable position. /forward to DE

That isn't what I said. I said you didn't know what you were talking about. Just having been in a fight does not mean you understand the topic. I've been in fights too, but I've also had the benefit of seeing street conflicts of many types on video, slowed down, and analyzed second by second so I could see the mistakes those involved made and learn from them myself. It is much easier to learn how fights go when you can look at them in detached comfort with professional analysis and instruction and when one is not personally involved.

Just "I've been in a fight" is absurd. My wife has had 4 babies; she does not therefor know how to deliver one. My dad was a drunk; that did not qualify him as an addiction counselor. You made an obviously absurd statement that someone can always disengage from conflict, even when its already unfolding, and I pointed out that this is not true and cited a currently prominent case (Zimmerman) where the defendants claim is that this was impossible. Your only response is a sarcastic comment about your personal experience and another silly emoticon.



Yes you are. You keep responding to me, despite your little "have a nice day" comment. I'm only "going on" in the sense that I keep responding in order to see what hilariously silly viewpoint you will reveal next. This thread has been an absolute gold mine already. Either that, or I half-expect you to reveal that you actually have been making all this up and are just trolling the **** out of everyone (which would be really funny).

If you don't want the law changed and don't care about it, then there was absolutely no point in bringing up what you think should be legal. This entire line of conversation started as a discussion of what could happen based on the way things actually are. You just went of "but why should it be illegal to fight?" and when its pointed out that this is irrelevant and not the way things actually are, you're right back to "oh well I really didn't care what the law is."



No one said you said differently. Thank you for admitting that your entire tangent about how fighting ought to be legal was entirely irrelevant.



So.. you hold your opinion for no actual reason at all? You haven't given a single reason in support of it. If one has an opinion on public policy, it makes very little sense to not think public policy ought to be enacted to follow it. Yet your ideas of how things ought to be regarding fights in the public streets are obviously not popular ones. If you think it ought to be legal, that necessarily implies that you think the legislature should change the law in order to legalize it, since that is how previously illegal things become legal.

Either you have some reason for this that you think ought to convince the average person to agree (whether or not you actually care about spending the time and effort to convince anyone notwithstanding), or you feel the legislature should just do what YOU want. Either that or you just think it should be that way, but have somehow severed your opinion on how things should be from the logical avenues for how they would get that way, most likely because when the impracticality and unlikelyhood of fighting in the streets becoming legal was exposed to you, you just retreated into "it's my opinion! I don't care!". It's not going to happen, you knew that perfectly well, and the entire tangent about "it should be legal!" was nothing but pointless resentment of the situation.



Yes, it's my personal narcissism that makes you respond extensively to me, and ignore everyone else. Sam also made a response that you ignored; Khross and Stathol got cursory responses at best. You have a history of bringing up me being a cop in other forums, and you bring it up in every thread about cops. Here's a hint: Observing your behavior and making an assesment of it is not "narcissism". I know you think you're scoring e-points by using that word, but.. you're not.



Because you're discussing the topic. Oh, but now all of a sudden you "don't care". Yes, when you express an opinion about how things should be, and someone points out the possible ramifications of that, the proper response is just to claim you really don't care at all. Your response is a typical one for an adolescent, just bluster about how you "don't care" when faced with insurmountable facts. If you don't care.. then stop responding. That would be the most effective way to not address things you don't care to address, wouldn't it?



Umm.. I hate to break this to you, but unless you are getting into fights just for the sake of the fight itself, or for no apparent reason at all, you're "trying to achieve some goal". You just admitted that you've been an aggressor, and that you hit someone over saying something "highly inappropriate".



And yet, your very first response in this thread was eye rolling at the suggestion at this could happen, and the description of what its actually like when this happens. That description wasn't melodramatic, either. Actual wounds are gruesome, and bleeding to death is a very bad way to die.



I don't know if they were or weren't. You saying they weren't doesn't make it so, and no, "I was there" doesn't help you out. They aren't here, and you can only present these situations as you perceived them. You do not know what went through that person's mind, and obviously they felt threatened enough to pull a weapon.. yet you haven't been stabbed or shot.

That makes it pretty clear that they felt they were defending themselves against you - if they were intent on harming you, they would have used their weapon.

Simply saying "both created it" means nothing. I have no doubt that you have confronted people who are less than exemplary in their conduct, but that does not automatically translate to "they were unjustified in pulling out a weapon on me in order to prevent the confrontation from becoming physical".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The problem with your viewpoint is that when you stop and confront someone with words on the side of the highway, they may perceive that YOU intend to escalate from words to a fight for some reason or other. They therefore get out a weapon in order to prevent that. They may observe you and feel physically inferior and decide to preclude that possibility at all.

Dishonorable is irrelevant.

As for "running amok with simple ideas" yes, I am because you have totally failed to think through the ramifications of your ideas, and retreat into "I don't care!" when those are pointed out. Your ideas are simple to the point of being those of a simpleton. Since you're obviously not a stupid man, the only other explanation available is that you simply can't overcome your emotional need to address social situations you don't approve of, and simply don't like being confronted with the possible consequences.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Whatever happened to just flipping someone off when they do something that offends your sensibilities on the roadways?

_________________

Hell, even that can quickly escalate. I was walking my dog a few nights ago, and when I crossed the street - at the crosswalk and with the light - there was an oncoming SUV that didn't seem to be slowing down, so I gave him a "What the hell, man?" shrug (shoulders up and arms kinda out to the side, you know?), which prompted him, after he finally stopped hard at the light, to open his window and start telling me off for shrugging at him. I said something along the lines of, "Whatever, dude. It didn't look like you were going to stop, so I shrugged at you." That earned a "**** you, you Yuppie *******!" from him and a "**** you! You're the one who was accelerating into a crosswalk!" retort from me. At that point, he threatened to get out and "****' smack me one," but by then I was already 30 feet away (I had continued walking away during the exchange) and the light had changed, so he just peeled out and drove off. Point is, all I did was shrug at a bad driver, and even that almost led to violence!

Funnily enough, I was left wondering what I would have done if he had gotten out to "smack me one" and I had been armed. He was a big guy with obvious anger issues, and it was about 1:30 in the morning, so there was no one else around. Under those circumstances, would anyone here have drawn to warn him off if you were carrying? If not, what would you have done instead and at what point would you actually draw?

The only thing I can think throughout your story is that you need a bigger dog.

_________________

She's a 65-lb boxer! But yeah, she has a very gentle-looking face, and she's a huge coward to boot. This isn't her, but it's pretty close to what she looks like:



To be honest, my biggest concern in the heat of the moment wasn't getting hurt; it was that she'd run away and get lost if I had to drop the leash to defend myself.

Probably at the point he came at me. I'd hope, however, that the presence of the dog would deter him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, the possibility had occurred to me.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So, kind of a midget dog, then?

<<<Owns a 120lb Rott.mix


To the real question:



The answer depends on the state, the circumstances, etc.

First of all, I probably would have kept walking when he decided to yell at me. Yelling back is engaging the ignorant. Additionally, if you try to walk away at that point, you can later claim to the lawyers that you attempted to leave the scene.

Second, I certainly wouldn't have drawn until he existed the vehicle. At that point, however, a zealous prosecutor could theoretically charge aggravated menacing (or similar), depending on who they want to believe.

Third, 21 feet and under is generally considered lethal engagement distance if he had a weapon. If he didn't have a weapon, I'd personally be hard pressed to justify a shooting (due to my size), but a smaller person could probably justify it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

This is a very important point that people often miss. There is no binary "the other guy does/does not have a weapon" condition that justifies the person being aggressed using one or not. The physical capabilities of the defender, and those of the attacker as they appear to the defender and the totality of the other circumstances all come into play. Those circumstances can change as well; had George Zimmerman claimed he shot Treyvon Martin as Martin came at him, his legal position would be significantly weaker (although still possibly defensible) that the claim he actually HAS made, that Martin had him down, and was on top of him punching him.

Where people get into trouble legally in self-defense situations (other than claiming self-defense in situations where they clearly were doing no such thing) is basically a failure to articulate the circumstances that led them to defend themselves. In many of these cases, the self-defense claim is probably workable, but the person has already talked themselves into trouble because they have been vague, or because they presented the circumstances to the police (who were not there) in such a manner as to make their claim of self defense much weaker than it would be had they described their perceptions and their reasons for those perceptions accurately.

This is why you should NEVER make a statement without a lawyer if you intend to claim self-defense. It is a very easy defense to spoil by presenting the circumstances inaccurately, and doubly so if your opponent is still alive to give HIS version of what happened. The laws also vary from place to place, and few people look up the laws carefully or get clarifying advice on them before they find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I should point out that, due to a USSC decision this week, you should also not remain silent, per se. You should, very specifically, claim your 5th amendment rights and request a lawyer. Then be silent.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Even without the decision, that's what people should have been doing anyhow.

It's also important to note that in that case, the person was not yet in custody. The decision, therefore, does not necessarily apply to subjects already under arrest. Still, what you have pointed out is always a good idea. If you defended yourself against an agressor, there's no reason to then foolishly throw your rights away by talking yourself out of them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What I'm saying is that the court ruled that simply not talking is insufficient. You now have to specifically state "I'm exercising my 5th Amendment rights" (or similar). You cannot simply remain silent.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I know. I'm saying it would be stupid to just not talk regardless. You can't request a lawyer by remaining silent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which wasn't the point I was making. That was implied in my original response to you, in which I quoted you saying not to make a statement without a lawyer present.

I'm just trying to highlight for people that you now have the additional onus to claim the 5th. Which seems dumb.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It's really not dumb. The decision explains precisely why it is like that. In any case I wasn't disagreeing with you, or contesting the point you were making.

As the decision explains (among other things) the 5th amendment does not establish a "right to silence"; it establishes a protection against appearing as a witness against yourself. At trial, that means you can't be compelled to take the stand if you are the defendant, even for the purpose of asserting your right not to take the stand. By its nature, taking the stand exposes you to cross-examination and therefore under no circumstance whatever can a defendant be compelled to take the stand at their own trial.

However, when a person is not a defendant they cannot invoke the 5th amendment just because they feel like it - it is not an unlimited right of silence, it is a right against self incrimination. Therefore, when a person simply refuses to answer, they are refusing to answer, not invoking a right to silence because as the case correctly points out they also may be thinking of a lie, embarassed, protecting someone else, or maybe another possibility. Obviously the government cannot beat an answer out of you just because you say nothing, but except in very specific circumstances (also discussed in the decision) you aren't invoking a right not to testify against yourself until you specifically say that is what you are doing because no one knows exactly why you are remaining silent.

In none of those cases does the 5th amendment apply. Therefore, if the person wishes to invoke it, they need to specifically say so. That makes it clear that are invoking the right, and not using it to shield someone else, or simply trying to buy time, or whatever. Note that if a person invokes the right incorrectly (that is, they invoke it in the belief that something may incriminate them, when in fact no such information is in their possession) that is protected as well.

This case is really nothing new; it relies on considerable precedent.

There are exceptions as well where one cannot be compelled to testify against another (attorney, clergy, spousal privileges, for example) but those are protected as privileges, not as rights under the 5th amendment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The answer for someone who responds with lethal violence is typically not to be in that situation to begin with. Even seasoned veterans who have served in elite Tier 1 operations units or crack gunfighters that operate in specialized entry law enforcement teams that teach carbine and pistol courses stress avoiding violence when possible as the best solution. That means swallowing your ego and not trying to instill your ideas of proper etiquette on a random individual you know nothing about.

The fact is that someone who is unhinged and armed can draw and kill you faster you can even react and you have absolutely no way of determining if a random person you are about to lay out a dissertation about road manners if such a person or not. And has been pointed out, the likelihood of a person who would actually stop in traffic being such a person is much higher than a random individual. Any aversion to these facts is simply ignorance. That is the reality of it.

I'm going to be really blunt because mincing words isn't going to serve any purpose here. Your philosophy with regards to handling encounters with road rage is **** moronic, borderline legally retarded and is informed by an overblown ego and complete ignorance as to the entire spectrum of exactly how violent encounters can unfold. Just because you've been in a few tussles or verbal confrontations doesn't mean all encounters are going to to work like that. You are playing with fire and then getting all butthurt with wadded up panties to boot that people are calling it stupid. It's **** stupid, man. If I posted about playing with my guns, I'd expect people here to call me retarded as well. Now that the facts and logic are clearly stacked against you, you're just being indignant. No amount of finagling with wordplay about honor or skills and experience with weapons and armed combat changes the facts that engaging in situations which could lead, very quickly, to armed confrontation is **** stupid whether or not you've personally been close to being killed or not.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Ah, now you see...that right there is a horse.

Moose is a 115 lb. non-obese, non-fat American Staffordshire Terrier.

_________________